I think one of the reasons Silent Hill succeeded was that it went for "unsettling" as much as "scary". True horror in gaming is about anticipation, about trying to figure out the rules of the world you're in and what lives in it- and let me tell you, when I came down from that attic and found myself surrounded by rusted fences and rotting skin for the first time, I realized that the game had just significantly changed those rules and I'd gone from "seriously disadvantaged" to "up a creek".

The Rogue Wolf:I think one of the reasons Silent Hill succeeded was that it went for "unsettling" as much as "scary". True horror in gaming is about anticipation, about trying to figure out the rules of the world you're in and what lives in it- and let me tell you, when I came down from that attic and found myself surrounded by rusted fences and rotting skin for the first time, I realized that the game had just significantly changed those rules and I'd gone from "seriously disadvantaged" to "up a creek".

What you say is true.

A resident evil (back in it's day) was good for a shot of adrenaline. Oh, the big back just jumped up and said boo. Silent Hills had you questioning things for years to come.

Before we had Silent Hill 3, my friends and I loved discussing the ending of One. Did anything matter? Was it all predestined. Where is the end? Where was the beginning. I still love discussing Silent Hill 2. I frequently watch Let's Plays (BECAUSE KOMANI HATES MONEY AND WON'T PORT IT TO STEAM) to see things I've missed and parts that are unsettling once you realize. I can talk about ideas of Silent Hill 2 for hours.

But what people think 'true' horror is is Evil Within. Weird looking things trying to kill you. It's sad, really.

Johnny Novgorod:The aglaophotis I get, but how do you miss the rifle? It's quite obviously displayed during your fight with pre-moth Floatstinger.

I couldn't tell you how it happened. But (a) it's apparently not necessary until the carnival boss and (b) there's no way to backtrack to it beforehand, especially once you hit the save point.

Why I could beat all the monsterous bosses before that with other weapons, but Cybil needs the hunting rifle is beyond me. And that decision cost me six hours. Even if it won't happen to most players, it's a poor design choice.

This is my second favorite of the series. My favorite of the series is the third game, Silent Hill 3, because I played it when I was the same age as Heather. I honestly legitimately loved Silent Hill 2 at one time but since it's release I've seen it not only consume what people think the series SHOULD be, I also think it's gotten prioritized over the others, that it's become frankly overly over-rated. When later games in the series, mostly western post-SH4 games, have started to prioritize SH 2-style twists and needless or in some cases odd symbolism, such as using sexy nurses and sex demons when it makes zero sense, I start to take umbrage. I'm not saying you can't love 2, hell I still deep down do myself. I'm saying the Lovecraftian horror and very Japanese feel of 1, 3 and 4 shouldn't be outweighed by the overbearing David Lynchian Silent Hill 2 and the bizarre impersonation of 2 that the later games do.

I'm not really sure what's with the gripe of "I didn't want to play this game again because I missed some items". Find me even a few people who played the game for the first time when it came out, without a guide, and knew both to take the red goo into a vial from the hospital AND that you should throw it at Cybil.

This game, much like SH2, has MULTIPLE ENDINGS. It's MEANT FOR REPLAYS. How can a game reviewer moan about sometihng like this? It's beyond me, in fact as of late, these GOR articles have started to become more and more frustrating to read, since they compare too much anecdotal opinion and what modern games do or don't do.

If you don't like revieweing old games the way they're supposed to be played, why are you doing this? I know this is kind of a harsh critique, but please take it into consideration in future reviews and games you plan to tackle.

ThinRedLine:I'm not really sure what's with the gripe of "I didn't want to play this game again because I missed some items". Find me even a few people who played the game for the first time when it came out, without a guide, and knew both to take the red goo into a vial from the hospital AND that you should throw it at Cybil.

This game, much like SH2, has MULTIPLE ENDINGS. It's MEANT FOR REPLAYS. How can a game reviewer moan about sometihng like this? It's beyond me, in fact as of late, these GOR articles have started to become more and more frustrating to read, since they compare too much anecdotal opinion and what modern games do or don't do.

If you don't like revieweing old games the way they're supposed to be played, why are you doing this? I know this is kind of a harsh critique, but please take it into consideration in future reviews and games you plan to tackle.

My criticism has nothing to do with finding/not finding the red vial specifically. I didn't need to get the best ending, or have all player choices be made obvious. It was that SIlent Hill can be made impossible to finish just by missing a few details. That's a poor design choice no matter what console generation it was played in. (Adventure games had the exact same problem, which is a big reason the genre was "dead" for so long.)

As for bringing up modern games, this column is about seeing how old games hold up today. Anyone playing Silent Hill for the first time (like I did in this case) will have a very different experience then playing it in the 1990s. Anyone replaying this game will experience nostalgia, but also find things that don't hold up anymore. If we wanted to know how Silent Hill played in its time, we could look up reviews from the 1990s (which were based on relatively new PS1s and CRT TV screens). Not everything about a particular gaming works anymore, but that doesn't mean it's worth having the discussion go that way.

By the way, I'm not saying Silent Hill is a bad game. It's a good game! But that doesn't mean I was sucked in enough to replay over 3/4 of the game to correct one mistake. Yes, that is my opinion on the subject, but that's also how reviews work.

I just wanted to point out that looking at the comments, other people as well have also questioned you missing the rifle the first time round, as it seems like it's not something easy to do for most. If your point is that the game has faults just because there is a possibility to miss it, that opinion would unfortunately lend to so many different games and genres that it would basically invalidate the vast majority of games ever made into "bad design".

Critique the critics, is what I say, there's always room for growth on all sides of the fence, so again thanks for replying, very nice of you.

PS. Are all the GOR reviews you're playing mostly games you haven't played in the past or when they came out, or do you talk with your editors on what games to review? Would be interesting to hear.

Anyway, keep it up. If I came off a bit strong with the caps there it was just me being a bit baffled.

I feel as though Silent Hill 1 was a good foundation for both 2 and for 3. The criticisms of how dated it has become are quite valid, something Silent Hill 3 illustrates by being the best (least bad?) of the original four gameplay wise and yet the most similar to the original.

My biggest woe with the Silent Hill franchise is that 2 is glorified to Hell and back and people seem to forget that Shattered Memories and Downpour are nothing like that derivative, desperate Homecoming riff-raff.

I just wanted to point out that looking at the comments, other people as well have also questioned you missing the rifle the first time round, as it seems like it's not something easy to do for most. If your point is that the game has faults just because there is a possibility to miss it, that opinion would unfortunately lend to so many different games and genres that it would basically invalidate the vast majority of games ever made into "bad design".

Critique the critics, is what I say, there's always room for growth on all sides of the fence, so again thanks for replying, very nice of you.

PS. Are all the GOR reviews you're playing mostly games you haven't played in the past or when they came out, or do you talk with your editors on what games to review? Would be interesting to hear.

Anyway, keep it up. If I came off a bit strong with the caps there it was just me being a bit baffled.

No worries at all! Believe me, I've heard worse. :)

I wouldn't have a problem with missing the rifle if it made Silent Hill harder, much like missing a weapon in Resident Evil might. But the combat is designed to be almost impossible without it (or the red vial, but that's getting outside of combat concerns). I replayed that fight so many times, I could literally make perfect shots with every single other weapon and I had, and all it did was leave her slightly wounded.

Even if my particular case is rare, that seems like downright bizarre balancing to me. I mean, what if the player expended too much hunting rifle ammo before facing Cybil? They'd be equally stuck.

Ah, well.

For your other questions: Most games I've covered for Good Old Reviews are first-time playthroughs, except for Anachronox and Final Fantasy V. (There were some replays I would've liked to do, but Stew Shearer got to them first.... what a jerk!) When we first decided to bring the column back, I pitched a month of articles, and Josh Vanderwall and I made some tweaks to it. Outside of that pitch I'll run ideas past Josh, but he gives me lots of leeway in terms of specific game coverage - at least so far!

Going forward, I'm hoping to cover "new" GOG re-releases (like System Shock) and older games seeing modern-day sequels/reboots. I'll also try to follow current themes, like horror in October or classic Star Wars once Force Awakened comes out. I'd also like to have some unique line-ups on occasion - writing about Silent Hill really makes me want to have a "Good Old Konami" month looking at Metal Gear or Castlevania, for example.

And of course, I'm always up for game suggestions that readers want! Those are incredibly useful to me as I put these lists together.

ThinRedLine:If you don't like revieweing old games the way they're supposed to be played, why are you doing this?

You're supposed to save yourself into an unwinnable situation because of missing optional items?Sorry, no. No amount of weird egotistical "Pffssh that was EEEASY for ME" is ever going to put the Bad Design genie back in the bottle. It's an old game with bad flaws, deal with it. :P

ThinRedLine:If you don't like revieweing old games the way they're supposed to be played, why are you doing this?

You're supposed to save yourself into an unwinnable situation because of missing optional items?Sorry, no. No amount of weird egotistical "Pffssh that was EEEASY for ME" is ever going to put the Bad Design genie back in the bottle. It's an old game with bad flaws, deal with it. :P

This is just bad bait, I've seen enough what can go on on these forums to tell you it's useless.

Why is this column so hard to find on this site? I forgot the exact name of the column (Good Old Reviews) and thought maybe it was listed somewhere in the menus. I keep hoping it'll show up in the "Weekly Content Schedule" on the bottom of the front page, but because this column only appears on Sat, and the schedule only runs Mon - Fri, well...

I just now tried again by looking under VideoGames/Latest, VideoGames/Reviews, VideoGames/Everything, and I just get tired of clicking on "More Stories" over and over, still not finding it. So I had to find it by remembering the name of a game reviewed here once. Now I set a bookmark for the future, but it's kinda too bad this thread isn't better represented, it might get more views. I really like it!